Trump ‘seriously considering’ a pardon for ex-Sheriff Joe Arpaio

 

Gregg Jarrett
August 14, 2017

EXCLUSIVE: President Trump may soon issue a pardon for Joe Arpaio, the colorful former Arizona sheriff who was found guilty two weeks ago of criminal contempt for defying a state judge’s order to stop traffic patrols targeting suspected undocumented immigrants. In his final years as Maricopa County sheriff, Arpaio had emerged as a leading opponent of illegal immigration.

“I am seriously considering a pardon for Sheriff Arpaio,” the president said Sunday, during a conversation with Fox News at his club in Bedminster, N.J. “He has done a lot in the fight against illegal immigration. He’s a great American patriot and I hate to see what has happened to him.”

Trump said the pardon could happen in the next few days, should he decide to do so.

Arpaio, 85, was convicted by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton of misdemeanor contempt of court for willfully disregarding an Arizona judge’s order in 2011 to stop the anti-immigrant traffic patrols. Arpaio had maintained the law enforcement patrols for 17 months thereafter.

The man who built a controversial national reputation as “America’s toughest sheriff” admitted he prolonged his patrols, but insisted he did not intend to break the law because one of his former attorneys did not explain to him the full measure of restrictions contained in the court order.

He is expected to be sentenced on Oct. 5 and could face up to six months in jail. However, since he is 85 years old and has no prior convictions, some attorneys doubt he will receive any jail time.

Citing his long service as “an outstanding sheriff,” the president said Arpaio is admired by many Arizona citizens who respected his tough-on-crime approach.

Arpaio’s widely publicized tactics included forcing inmates to wear pink underwear and housing them in desert tent camps where temperatures often climbed well past 100 degrees Fahrenheit. He also controversially brought back chain gains, including a voluntary chain gang for women prisoners.

Civil liberties and prisoner advocates as well as supporters of immigrants’ rights have criticized Arpaio for years, culminating in his prosecution. He lost his bid for reelection last year.

“Is there anyone in local law enforcement who has done more to crack down on illegal immigration than Sheriff Joe?” asked Trump. “He has protected people from crimes and saved lives. He doesn’t deserve to be treated this way.”

Stopping the flow of undocumented immigrants across the southern U.S. border was a central theme of the president’s campaign. Arpaio endorsed Trump in January 2016.

Trump indicated he may move quickly should he decide to issue a presidential pardon. “I might do it right away, maybe early this week. I am seriously thinking about it.”

Trump could decide to await the outcome of an appeal by Arpaio’s lawyers who contend their client’s case should have been decided by a jury, not a judge.

In a statement after the verdict, his attorneys stated, “The judge’s verdict is contrary to what every single witness testified in the case. Arpaio believes that a jury would have found in his favor, and that it will.”

Reached Monday for reaction to the possible pardon, Arpaio expressed surprise that Trump was aware of his legal predicament.

“I am happy he understands the case,” he told Fox News. “I would accept the pardon because I am 100 percent not guilty.”

The former sheriff said he will continue to be a strong supporter of the president regardless of whether he receives a pardon. But he also voiced concern that a pardon might cause problems for Trump, saying, “I would never ask him for a pardon, especially if it causes heat. I don’t want to do anything that would hurt the president.”

Continue reading.

Senator’s pet issue: money and the power it buys

 

WASHINGTON — In the early 1970s, Addison Mitchell McConnell Jr., a young and intense Republican lawyer, strode into the political science class he taught at the University of Louisville.

He didn’t introduce himself to his students. He went straight to the chalkboard and scribbled.”I am going to teach you the three things you need to build a political party,” he said, and backed away to reveal the words: “Money, money, money.”

Three decades later, the teacher has mastered the lesson like few in history.

An extraordinary political fund-raiser, Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has used his skill to put himself on the brink of a remarkable career achievement. If Republicans hold the Senate in the Nov. 7 elections, he is expected to succeed retiring Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee as majority leader.

McConnell’s rise to the top of Congress is testament to the power of money in modern politics. He has raised nearly $220 million over his Senate career; he spent the majority not on his own campaigns but on those of his GOP colleagues, who have rewarded him with power.

“He’s completely dogged in his pursuit of money. That’s his great love, above everything else,” said Marshall Whitman, who watched McConnell as an aide to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and as a Christian Coalition lobbyist.

A leader in the field of tapping the wealthy for campaign cash, McConnell also led the opposition against efforts to rein in such donations through campaign-finance reform — a fight that has taken him to the U.S. Supreme Court and put him toe-to-toe against another emerging Republican leader, presidential hopeful McCain.

A six-month examination of McConnell’s career, based on thousands of documents and scores of interviews, shows the nexus between his actions and his donors’ agendas. He pushes the government to help cigarette makers, Las Vegas casinos, the pharmaceutical industry, credit card lenders, coal mine owners and others.

Critics, including anti-poverty groups and labor unions, complain that McConnell has come to represent his affluent donors at the expense of Kentucky, the relatively poor state he is supposed to represent. They point, for example, to his support last year for a tough bankruptcy law, backed by New York banks that support him.

McConnell waves away all criticism of his fund-raising.

In a recent interview, he said he never allows money to influence him. His donors support him because they like his pro-business, conservative philosophy, he said, so it’s hardly proof of corruption when he does what they want.

Supporters say, furthermore, that Kentucky benefits from having McConnell at the top, regardless of criticism over how he got there. McConnell uses his clout to steer millions of dollars to projects back home, said Steven Law, the senator’s former fund-raising aide, now top deputy to McConnell’s wife, Labor Secretary Elaine Chao.

Once he secured his own Senate seat, McConnell skillfully forwarded money to GOP senators who needed it, building a path to what he truly wanted — the No. 1 job.

McConnell is hardly alone in his quest for cash. Money cascades into politics these days. Senate races burned through $543 million in 2004, up nearly 50 percent from the previous election cycle. And although some argue that the power of political money can be corrupting — witness this year’s imprisonment of former U.S. Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, R-Calif., for bribery — McConnell has raised his millions without any evidence of improper personal benefit.

But someone who can raise more than $90 million for his allies — as McConnell did twice, as chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee — is golden when it comes time for GOP senators to elect a majority leader. That’s not counting the millions McConnell sends to GOP colleagues from his own political-action committee and campaign fund.

Some senators shy away from fund-raising duties because of ethical concerns. Top donors tell senators what they want from upcoming votes, and top donors get special treatment, said retired Sen. Alan Simpson, R-Wyo. Their calls to Senate offices are returned first, Simpson said, and their wishes are a priority when action is taken.

“I didn’t enjoy it at all,” Simpson said. “I just felt uncomfortable.”

Yet McConnell never blinks, Simpson said.

“When he asked for money, his eyes would shine like diamonds,” Simpson said. “He obviously loved it.”

McConnell denied that he’s more devoted to money than anyone else “in my line of work.”

“Building up your finances so you can amplify your voice is critical to any successful political activity,” McConnell said. “It’s a central part of the process.”

Still, the symbiosis between McConnell and his donors raises questions about who’s really in charge.

‘A choking sensation’

Take his longtime friendship with cigarette-maker lobbyists, revealed in hundreds of corporate documents made public during litigation. Records suggest a close working relationship behind the scenes.

They instructed him on smoking-related legislation. He offered to amend bills on the Senate floor at their direction. During the 1990s, when he attacked the Food and Drug Administration for its anti-smoking efforts, he followed talking points they fed him. Their attorneys helped draft a bill he filed to protect their companies from lawsuits, as well as his correspondence to the White House to oppose federal smoking-prevention programs.

In turn, they gave him gifts, including Washington Redskins football tickets and many thousands of dollars in speaking fees to supplement his Senate salary. They paid for their own voter polls in his 1996 Senate race, to monitor his progress.

But their real support — millions of dollars in donations — came between important Senate votes. The lobbyists assured him: “We will provide maximum help very early.”

In 1998, McConnell helped to kill a proposal to curb youth smoking. About four months later, he called lobbyists at R.J. Reynolds Co. and asked for $200,000 in corporate “soft money” that he could pass to Republican senators in elections. In an e-mail exchange, the lobbyists settled on “doing an additional 100,000 to him immediately and then seeing what we have left at end of next week.” The $200,000 was more than their company could swallow at once.

“Are you feeling a choking sensation?” Tommy Payne, vice president of external relations, asked John Fish, senior director of federal government affairs, in the final e-mail.

Three months later, rival Philip Morris Cos. sent McConnell $150,000 to distribute to GOP Senate campaigns and $100,000 for his pet non-profit program, the McConnell Center for Political Leadership at the University of Louisville, according to industry and college documents.

McConnell helps people who help him, inside and outside Kentucky. Consider Guardsmark, a Memphis, Tenn., security firm with clients nationwide.

Guardsmark founder Ira Lipman and his employees have given more than $66,000 to McConnell’s campaigns. McConnell has described Lipman as a friend whom he calls to arrange Tennessee fund-raisers.

After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, demand for private security boomed. Lipman thought it would be useful for his employees to have access to the FBI fingerprint database, then available only to law-enforcement agencies. McConnell co-sponsored the necessary legislation.

“Today our nation is on its way to becoming safer and more secure,” Lipman said in a press release after President Bush signed the bill into law in 2004. And Lipman credited McConnell.

The Inner Circle

Unlike other senators, McConnell, 64, typically avoids the mass fund-raising that brings small donations of less than $200 from working-class Americans through direct mail, phone banks and the Internet.

His donors are likely to start at $1,000. He favors intimate receptions where he can offer them his full attention, leaning in to listen, saying little, holding a glass of wine without paying much attention to it. His Rolodex is one of the best. He is president of the century-old Alfalfa Club, which gathers the nation’s richest and most powerful on the birthday of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee, for cocktails and filet mignon.

McConnell seldom opens his own wallet. In the past decade, he has given only $10,000 of his personal funds for campaign donations. Asked to explain that, he pleaded poverty. In his view, it’s wealthier people who support campaigns.

“I don’t have a whole lot of money to contribute,” said McConnell, whose Senate salary is $165,200, and who has homes in Louisville and Washington — the latter a handsome Capitol Hill townhouse assessed at $1.3 million.

McConnell’s invitations to the wealthy to become lifetime members of the “Senate Republican Inner Circle” ($15,000 for life or $2,000 a year) guarantee private dinners and valuable briefings with “the men who are shaping the Senate agenda,” including himself, caucus leaders and committee chairmen.

“Americans are big on rewards these days. Financial rewards in the stock market — cash rewards on your credit cards — luxurious rewards in the travel industry,” McConnell wrote in one invitation. “But a special group of Americans is experiencing one of the greatest reward programs ever, because they took the initiative to become a Life Member of the Inner Circle.”

Those rewards are greatly anticipated by corporate leaders who want a say in Senate decisions. After the Inner Circle welcomed Geoffrey Bible, chief executive at Philip Morris, he sent a copy of the announcement to his aides.

“So now I’m in,” Bible wrote in the margin. “See if we can make the most of it.”

In an interview, McConnell said his invitations exaggerate the intimacy at some events in order to get people to write him a check. A major GOP Senate fund-raiser can draw 1,000 people, he said. No donor ever uses social time with senators to influence Senate business, he said.

“They want their picture taken with you; that’s all it amounts to,” he said.

As McConnell’s influence grows, so does the value of his company.

Lobbyist Kent Hance organized a reception for McConnell in March at the Dallas home of oilman R.H. Pickens. Hance said it raised about $50,000 for McConnell’s 2008 re-election from a few dozen investors and executives. (McConnell spent $5.7 million on his 2002 campaign and already has banked half that sum for 2008.)

Millionaires and billionaires wanted to hear how McConnell plans to further cut their taxes, Hance said.

“He’s gonna be the next Senate majority leader, so we didn’t have to hold a gun on people to get ’em to attend,” Hance said. “Everybody wants to be his friend now.”

Speaking in 1994 at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, McConnell explained his fund-raising: “I prefer to get (money) from individuals who voluntarily choose to give to me because they like what I stand for.”

However, because he now raises the majority of his money nationally, not in Kentucky, it’s not uncommon for his donors to know scarcely anything about him, except that he is a powerful man.

Corporations and professional groups that want a friend in Washington instruct their employees and members to give generously to the rising senator.

At a New York luncheon last fall, McConnell received about $60,000 from scores of workers at two financial giants, UBS and Citigroup, which had just successfully lobbied Senate Republicans for a tough bankruptcy law that makes life harder for credit card debtors.

President Bush praised McConnell by name as he signed the law.

Christopher Hagstrom, a UBS Financial Services securities lender, said managers spread the word to write a check to McConnell. His suggested sum was $1,000, which he gave. Hagstrom said he is barely aware of McConnell, other than “he has the backing of the guys here.”

McConnell has said he encourages donors to send the maximum allowed by law, then arrange for their families to give, too. Before he takes checks from minors, he said, “they, of course, have to be signed by the children.” (It is legal for children to give, if they do so willingly and use their own money, which the Federal Election Commission says is hard to determine.) He gets tens of thousands from donors identified as “students,” usually in sums of $1,000 each.

Pressed for time, McConnell regularly skips daily Senate business. In 2005, for example, he missed 83 percent of his assigned committee hearings about government spending and agriculture. He said it’s “absurd” to question the hearings he misses, given his busy leadership schedule. “Every day is a series of choices about how to spend your time,” he said.

However, he attends myriad receptions in Washington and around the country. These events are scheduled by McConnell’s fund-raising office, run by former banking lobbyist Alison Crombie Kinnahan out of a corporate lobbying firm a quick walk down the street from McConnell’s Capitol office.

McConnell says his coast-to-coast collections are appropriate because he is no longer a mere Kentucky politician. He is “a United States senator.”

Even in Congress, which devotes evenings and weekends to taking money, McConnell is considered extraordinary.

Not physically: Relatively small in stature and with a pale complexion, he is formal and reserved. Other senators cultivate a folksy demeanor to connect with folks back home. Senate aides compare approaching McConnell to meeting a girlfriend’s father.

But he brings in the money. In 2002, GOP senators elected him to their No. 2 post — majority whip — after his record-breaking four years as chairman of their fund-raising machine, the National Republican Senatorial Committee. He’s one of only two senators in decades to serve consecutive terms in the grueling job. In fact, this year, the GOP struggled for months to find anyone to volunteer as chairman for 2008.

Under McConnell, the NRSC paid off a $6 million debt, said former NRSC aide Stuart Roy, who later joined Chao’s Labor Department. McConnell raised $91 million in one term and $96 million in the next.

He disgusted a few colleagues by focusing on televised attack ads. What McConnell calls “amplifying your voice,” others saw as dragging public debate into the gutter.

Many politicians sling mud at their opponents. But McConnell is thought especially brilliant at finding a potential weakness in his opponents, crafting an attack around it and hammering it home, again and again, with blistering commercials — which is where so much of that money goes.

McConnell learned under Republican media consultant Roger Ailes, who handled paid media for his 1984 campaign and is now the head of Fox News Channel.

Not everyone has blessed the approach.

“This nonsense of savaging your opponent and making their noses grow long and their ears grow hairy and big, that’s something my 6-year-old and 8-year-old find quite amusing. It’s great theater, but I don’t know what it does to improve the culture of politics or governance or leadership in this country,” said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., in a 1998 challenge to McConnell’s command at the NRSC.

But Republicans stuck with McConnell. He built Senate loyalties by redirecting millions of dollars he raised through his own PAC, dispensing $5,000 and $10,000 at a time. He pledged this year to send $1 million of his funds to pay for other senators’ races.

“His fund-raising is like a corporation, a booming, full-time business,” said Whitman, the former Republican Senate aide.

“He has people in charge of reaching out to new donors, people in charge of massaging the old donors and staying in contact with them, and people in charge of collecting,” Whitman said. “This goes on throughout the year, every year.”

McCain vs. McConnell

In the Senate, McConnell cast himself as the anti-McCain.

John McCain, the once and future GOP presidential candidate, is a fiery reformer drawn to television cameras. McConnell, a defender of the status quo, mocks “reform” efforts with a smirk. He prefers to cut deals in private.

Other senators are wary of butting heads with the media-savvy McCain. Not McConnell. When McCain’s reform proposals displease Republican Party donors, McConnell outmaneuvers the maverick.

“McConnell is not scared of McCain,” said Mark Buse, a former McCain aide for two decades and now a lobbyist. “Because he knows the (Senate) rules better than most people, he does very well by them.”

They have had epic clashes:

* In 1998, McCain pushed a bill to curb youth smoking through new tobacco advertising restrictions.

Senators voted it down after a closed-door lunch for Republican senators in which McConnell — according to news reports — told colleagues that cigarette companies would help them with campaign advertising if they voted against the bill.

Health groups protested that McConnell sold out the nation’s youth.

McConnell refused to publicly discuss his luncheon remarks. But the bill did fail, and federal election records show that cigarette companies poured hundreds of thousands of dollars through McConnell to Senate GOP campaigns.

* In 2000, McCain pushed a bill to outlaw gambling on college sports, which is legal only in Nevada.

Among those arguing for the bill was University of Kentucky basketball coach Tubby Smith, who said Las Vegas bookies legally set the point spreads that form the basis of illegal betting everywhere else.

McConnell was befriending Las Vegas casinos, which opposed the bill. In 1997, he and then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., flew to Las Vegas on the corporate jet of Steve Wynn, owner of Mirage Resorts, to kick off a series of GOP fund-raisers. “We wanted to have support from that industry,” McConnell said later.

They got it. Casinos in the American Gaming Association — whose chief lobbyist, D. Brett Hale, is a former McConnell aide — gave more than $2 million to the NRSC during McConnell’s chairmanship in 1998 and 2000, up from $375,000 for the 1996 races.

McCain’s gambling bill easily passed in committee but languished for four months while he pleaded with Senate GOP leaders to allow a floor vote. They said they could not find time. When they finally agreed to a vote, Nevada’s two senators — both Democrats — were ready to block it with objections. It died.

News reports identified McConnell as one of the senators working against the bill. McConnell recently denied that.

Doris Dixon, who lobbied the Senate for the bill, said McConnell was part of the effort to keep it from getting a floor vote. Dixon was then director of federal relations for the National Collegiate Athletic Association. She said McConnell and his aides refused even to meet with her side.

“Sen. McConnell was instrumental in blocking it from going forward,” Dixon said. “He was talking to other Republican senators about the problems it would pose for him as chairman of their fund-raising committee, which was taking money from Nevada.”

McConnell had pleased his Las Vegas donors earlier by persuading Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., to withdraw an amendment that would have ended the federal tax deduction for gambling losses.

The deduction costs the government millions. Coats wanted it replaced with a deduction for Americans who support scholarship programs for poor children. But the gambling industry said the deduction was crucial for its biggest bettors.

* Also in 2000, responding to fatal crashes involving Ford Explorers with Firestone tires, McCain pushed a safety bill to require automakers to report serious defects to the government or risk prosecution.

McCain’s bill passed in committee but stalled when several senators placed anonymous “holds” on it, blocking a floor vote. McCain angrily cried, “The fix is in!” Business groups and Senate GOP leaders backed the shadowy stall tactic.

News reports and McCain’s office identified McConnell among the senators placing a hold.

“I was there, I was intimately involved with lobbying on Sen. McCain’s bill, and Sen. McConnell definitely was actively opposing it,” Joan Claybrook, president of watchdog group Public Citizen, recently said.

McConnell, an advocate of anonymous holds, recently denied placing a hold in that case. He said he and the Senate voted for McCain’s safety bill, and it became law.

However, what really happened — according to congressional records and interviews — is that the Senate killed McCain’s bill by blocking the vote. In its place, the Senate adopted a weaker House bill sponsored by Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., and supported by the auto industry. McCain reluctantly accepted it as a compromise.

Critics said Upton’s bill did not require automakers to analyze their data for evidence of defects, and it allowed government secrecy to keep the public from learning of safety problems.

McConnell took more than $75,000 from automakers in the five previous years, according to the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics. Ford Motor Co.’s Washington advocacy team, which spent more than $8 million lobbying in 2000, was led by Janet Mullins Grissom, who was McConnell’s first Senate campaign manager and chief of staff.

People who know McCain and McConnell say they dislike each other. In separate interviews, the senators were respectful. McConnell said he feels no animosity over their “terrific battles.”

Asked about McConnell, McCain smiled tightly and shrugged. “One thing I’ve learned in politics, I try never to look backwards in anger,” McCain said. Then he turned away.

Enemy of reform

Campaign donations by “special interests” corrupt the Senate, Mitch McConnell warned — in 1984.

As Jefferson County judge-executive, McConnell challenged incumbent Sen. Walter “Dee” Huddleston, D-Ky. He flew to a breakfast at Washington’s Capitol Hill Club to ask the major PACs for money.

They refused. They backed Huddleston. So the underdog bit the hands that wouldn’t feed him.

“Huddleston For Sale to the Highest Bidder,” accused one of his campaign press releases attacking the senator’s PAC and special-interest money. McConnell depicted Huddleston as solely concerned about cash.

Within days of his surprise victory, McConnell launched fund-raising for his 1990 re-election, tapping the very Huddleston donors he had criticized. PACs alone gave him more than $41,000 before he took office.

“There was a lot of atoning to do,” lobbyist Benjamin Cooper told the Herald-Leader during a McConnell fund-raiser, a month after the 1984 election.

In a recent interview, Huddleston said he heard complaints.

“It got back to me pretty quickly,” Huddleston said. “Mitch went to the people who had supported me and told them that if they wanted any kind of representation in the Senate from this day forward, they had better pony up to him, starting now. Open your checkbooks.”

Not true, McConnell countered. He didn’t have to threaten anyone, just welcome them with open arms. It’s common for “special interests” who backed the loser to switch sides after an election, he said.

“I’ve always found it a bit amusing,” McConnell said. “They all have a right to support whomever they choose. And when they’re not supporting you, you have every right to complain about it.”

McConnell continued publicly warning about corruption while privately raising as much money as he could for his first decade in the Senate. Democrats, then the party in power, held the fund-raising advantage. McConnell called for campaign-finance reform to neutralize their edge.

“The electoral process suffers from real and perceived special-interest influence,” he wrote in a Herald-Leader opinion column in 1990.

Everything changed in 1994. Republicans seized Congress. Money shifted to the GOP. And in an about-face, McConnell became Washington’s fiercest enemy of campaign-finance reform.

For years, he beat back McCain and Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., as they tried to ban unlimited “soft money” contributions from corporations, unions and the wealthy. That opposition became his signature issue. Money equals speech, he said, so limiting donations is akin to gagging a political protester.

When McCain and Feingold’s Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act passed in 2002, McConnell called it “stunningly stupid.” He sued all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to stop it — and lost.

He resents Republican reform sympathizers.

In 1998, Rep. Linda Smith, R-Wash., challenged first-term Democratic Sen. Patty Murray. McConnell’s job as NRSC chairman was to assist GOP Senate campaigns. But Smith called for campaign-finance reform and assailed “the old boys and the old establishment.” McConnell limited her funding to a fraction of the more than $400,000 he was authorized to provide to her. Smith was defeated.

“We ended up with no money to put on any kind of TV or radio advertising,” Dale Foreman, who was chairman of the Washington state Republican Party, said recently. McConnell gave him a frosty reception when he flew east to plead Smith’s case, Foreman said.

“He clearly had strong opinions on campaign-finance reform, and anyone who disagreed with him, Republican or not, was not going to get any help,” Foreman said.

McConnell denied snubbing Smith because she called for reform. He said she simply could not win. “She was never in the game,” he said. But in McConnell’s NRSC fund-raising material sent to donors before the 1998 election, Murray was described as “highly vulnerable to defeat.”

GOP senators were happy to let McConnell lead the charge against reform, freeing them from taking a politically risky stand, said Brian Minnich, a McConnell aide in the 1980s.

McConnell insisted that voters do not care — “This issue, for average Americans, ranks right up there with static cling,” he said in a public television interview — and that was true, at least for Kentucky.

His 2002 election opponent, Lois Combs Weinberg, recently said her polls showed only five percent of the state’s voters objected to McConnell’s opposition to campaign-finance reform.

McConnell’s ardent pursuit of money set him apart and made him a leader. He is baffled by politicians who complain about having to ask for money, said Minnich, now a lobbyist.

“He wasn’t embarrassed by fund-raising,” Minnich said. “And he never forgot the people who helped him. That’s key.”

‘It was thuggish’

Not every donor wants to pay forever. In 1999, a group of prominent corporate leaders — including some of McConnell’s donors — led a rebellion against his fund-raising style. To his great anger, they endorsed reform.

One of them was Edward Kangas, who was worldwide chairman and chief executive of accounting giant Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu from 1989 to 2000.

Kangas was no purist. In 1995, he and other Deloitte executives put together about $20,000 for McConnell. Kangas said Deloitte wanted “visibility” as it lobbied for the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, making it harder for investors to recover fraud losses. The GOP Congress passed the act over President Clinton’s veto.

Consumer advocates howled, but McConnell backed the act. Arthur Anderson & Co. — the accounting firm later disgraced by its role in the Enron Corp. fraud — encased a copy of the bill in plastic to keep as a trophy. It also gave McConnell $3,000 about the time of the Senate vote.

Sending money to politicians on occasion is standard business, Kangas said. But it began to feel as if whenever Congress met, lawmakers called to mention upcoming votes that could help or harm Deloitte, he said. And a donation request would follow.

“It was a shakedown,” Kangas recalled, declining to say whether he specifically referred to McConnell.

“It’s often a regulated industry, like the banks, the financial services companies, the pharmaceuticals,” he said. “An executive gets a call from a politician — or someone close to the politician, who everyone knows speaks for him — who says, ‘Hey, it would be really appreciated if you could show us some support right now.'”

So Kangas joined other corporate leaders at the Committee for Economic Development — a Washington-based business group — in endorsing the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform bill.

McConnell was outraged. He mailed angry protest letters to CED members and their companies to warn that their reform advocacy would crimp the income of the Republican Party.

“I would think that public withdrawal from this organization would be a reasonable response,” he wrote. At the bottom, he scrawled personal messages naming individuals and concluding: “I hope (name) will resign from CED. Mitch.” “Mitch was not completely happy,” Kangas said, chuckling.

“It was thuggish,” said Charles E.M. Kolb, the CED’s president.

Kolb, a White House adviser to the first President Bush and an appointee under President Reagan, previously had donated to McConnell, but he resented McConnell’s tone. His group stood firm.

Continue reading at Lexington Herald Leader.

By Claire Cain Miller

Women were predicted to come out in force to vote for the first female president and against a man who demeaned them and bragged about sexual assault.

Instead, they voted more or less as they always have: along party lines.

The share of women who voted for Donald J. Trump and who didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton was, if you look at past data, not all that surprising. For years, political science has shown that party outweighs gender when it comes to voting. This election, despite all the gender ferment, turned out to be little different.

If anything, a small percentage of men who would ordinarily vote Democratic seem to have voted Republican, according to exit polls, which are generally good at capturing gender breakdown of the electorate.

The gender gap — the difference in the share of men and women who vote for a candidate — was 11 percentage points for Mr. Trump (53-42), similar to the gender gap for Bill Clinton in 1996 and Barack Obama in 2012, and in line with the gender breakdown of Republican voters.

Fifty-four percent of Mrs. Clinton’s voters were women, and 42 percent of Mr. Trump’s, an overall change of only one percentage point in Mrs. Clinton’s favor compared with 2012. Forty-one percent of her voters and 53 percent of Mr. Trump’s were men, an overall change of five percentage points in his favor.

Typically, at least 90 percent of voters in each party vote for that party’s candidate, according to Kathleen Dolan, professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, who studies women in politics.

Of Republican women, that appears to have happened for Mr. Trump. Fifty-three percent of white women voted for him, just as the majority of white women have voted Republican in recent elections. The only potential aberration is that only 87 percent of Democratic white men voted for Mrs. Clinton, slightly less than would be expected, Ms. Dolan said. There could be various reasons for that, and she said we did not yet know how significant it was.

The results show how deep party affiliation runs, even in the most atypical of elections, when gender played a bigger role than usual in the campaigns.

“We know this, yet we have this expectation from living in the world that sex really matters,” Ms. Dolan said. “It does not change things at all. What matters 99.9 percent of the time is their political party.”

In her research, she asked voters during congressional and governors’ elections in 2010 and 2014 about male and female candidates in general, and found that they held gender stereotypes about their strengths and weaknesses, like women excelling at health policy and men at crime policy. Two months later, she interviewed the same voters, this time using the names of the male and female candidates running. Gender stereotypes evaporated, and people chose candidates based on party, not gender.

Other research has come to similar conclusions.

There is very little evidence that women vote for women because of their sex, Ms. Dolan said. The reason it can seem that female voters are voting for female candidates is that both are more likely to be Democrats, so they’re actually voting along party lines.

Continue reading at The New York Times.

FBI files linking Hillary Clinton to the ‘suicide’ of White House counsel Vince Foster have vanished from the National Archives

By: Ronald Kessler

FBI agents’ reports of interviews documenting that Hillary Clinton’s stinging humiliation of her friend and mentor Vince Foster in front of White House aides triggered his suicide a week later are missing from where they should be filed at the National Archives, Daily Mail Online has learned exclusively.

On two separate occasions, this author visited the National Archives and Records Service in College Park, Md., to review the reports generated by FBI agents assigned to investigate the 1993 death of Bill Clinton’s deputy White House counsel.

On the first visit, archivist David Paynter provided the box of records that he said contained the FBI reports of interviews conducted by FBI agents on Foster’s death.

On a second visit, archivist James Mathis provided what he said were those same documents.

While the box contained dozens of FBI reports concerning Foster’s death – including interviews with the medical examiner, U.S. Park Police officers, and White House aides about the contents of Foster’s office –  the reports on Hillary Clinton’s role in his death were absent.

After filing a Freedom of Information request with the National Archives, Martha Murphy, the archives’ public liaison, reported that she directed a senior archivist to conduct a more thorough review of the relevant FBI files, including those that had not been previously made public in response to FOIA requests.

‘He examined all eight boxes but found no interviews by any investigator that detail either a meeting between Hillary Clinton and Vince Foster or the effects of a meeting between Hillary Clinton and Vince Foster on Vince Foster’s state of mind,’ Murphy reported in an email.

‘We did not limit ourselves to interviews by the two individuals [FBI agents] you mention.’

While Murphy said the archives searched for ‘the records that would be responsive to your request’ and concluded that they could not be found, when asked for comment, John Valceanu, the archives’ director of communications and marketing, said, ‘We do not agree with your conclusion that the records you requested are missing from the National Archives simply because we were unable to locate any responsive records in response to your request.’

While confirming that the records could not be located, Valceanu held out the possibility that the FBI interviews were not filed where they should have been and were somewhere else in the more than 3,000 boxes of records amounting to 7.5 million pages generated by the Starr investigation.

This is not the first time documents related to the Clintons have apparently vanished from the National Archive.

In March 2009, the archives found that an external hard drive from the Bill Clinton White House containing confidential documents was missing.

When it could not be located, the inspector general’s office announced that it had opened a criminal investigation.

Offering a reward of up to $50,000 for information leading to recovery of the hard drive, the archives asked that tips be reported to the Secret Service. At the time, the archives said it had a backup drive.

Continue Reading Here

Clinton Foundation Is The ‘Largest Unprosecuted Charity Fraud Ever’

By: Ginni Thomas

 

Wall Street investment analyst Charles Ortel called the Clinton Foundation “the largest unprosecuted charity fraud ever attempted” before all the newly-exposed emails from campaign chairman John Podesta’s account were released from WikiLeaks.

The leaks have fortified his findings. The Wall Street investment analyst, who retired at 46 and prides himself on researching complex problems like General Electric and the credit crisis, has been fly-specking the Clinton Foundation since the spring of 2015.

Ortel explains why he believes the Clinton Foundation is a “crooked charity cooking the books” with over $2 billion dollars in revenue, in this exclusive video interview for The Daily Caller News Foundation.

The Clintons, according to Ortel, have figured out how to turn their public service into a business. This charity is “a perfect gathering place and a front” to act as if you are helping others, when in fact they bring powerful people together, concocting deals and making people rich, including the Clintons, Ortel says.

Ortel found from a series of talk radio interviews that progressives are especially exercised about the Clinton Foundation’s abuse of the charity rules. Charity rules are strict as these entities stand in the shoes of the government, he says, to help people.

Ortel’s charges raise the specter that the IRS and other government agencies are picking winners and losers for charities now with two sets of rules. Tea party groups, as well as Democrat Congresswoman Corrine Brown, who is facing over 300 years in prison for her $800,000 slush fund, faced the wrath of government, while the $2 billion Clinton charity that bends rules, goes without scrutiny, he says.
Continue Reading Here

FBI Sources Believe Clinton Foundation Case Moving Towards “Likely an Indictment”

By: Tim Haines

1. The Clinton Foundation investigation is far more expansive than anybody has reported so far and has been going on for more than a year.

2. The laptops of Clinton aides Cherryl Mills and Heather Samuelson have not been destroyed, and agents are currently combing through them. The investigation has interviewed several people twice, and plans to interview some for a third time.

3. Agents have found emails believed to have originated on Hillary Clinton’s secret server on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. They say the emails are not duplicates and could potentially be classified in nature.

4. Sources within the FBI have told him that an indictment is “likely” in the case of pay-for-play at the Clinton Foundation, “barring some obstruction in some way” from the Justice Department.

5. FBI sources say with 99% accuracy that Hillary Clinton’s server has been hacked by at least five foreign intelligence agencies, and that information had been taken from it.

Watch videos and continue reading here

FBI report reveals she forwarded classified data to her private email

By Bill Gertz

Documents made public from the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private server provide clues about the current review of more than half a million emails linked to Clinton presidential campaign vice chair Huma Abedin.

Abedin was questioned by FBI agents and Justice Department officials, including those involved with counterintelligence matters, on April 5.

During those discussions, Abedin revealed that she used four different email accounts while she was deputy chief of staff for operations in Clinton’s seventh floor office at the State Department.

The email accounts included her official State Department account, abedinh@state.gov, the private server account, huma@clintonemail.com, and her private email, humamabedin@yahoo.com. Abedin’s fourth email account was associated with the campaign activities of her estranged husband, former Democratic congressman Anthony Weiner.

The FBI reopened its Clinton email investigation after agents recovered a laptop computer from Wiener that reportedly contains some 650,000 emails now being reviewed by FBI agents.  Weiner’s laptop was obtained during an investigation into allegations the former congressman exchanged illicit messages with a 15-year-old girl.

The FBI began reviewing the emails after receiving a search warrant on Monday.

FBI Director James Comey revealed to Congress last week that he ordered the email investigation to be reopened after “pertinent” information was uncovered in the separate investigation of Weiner.

The Wall Street Journal, quoting people close to the FBI and Justice Department, reported last weekend that FBI and Justice Department officials disagreed with the decision to renew the email probe.

Word of the FBI’s renewed email investigation was a political bombshell for Clinton, coming 11 days before Election Day and again raising questions about her character.

Clinton and her campaign spokespeople have called for the FBI to release further details about the new email cache.

On Monday, Assistant Attorney General Peter J. Kadzik wrote to congressional Democrats who sought additional details of the new probe. “We assure you that the Department will continue to work closely with the FBI and together, dedicate all necessary resources and take appropriate steps as expeditiously as possible,” Kadzik stated in a three-paragraph letter.

Abedin’s lawyer, Karen Dunn, said in a statement on Monday that Abedin was unaware that her emails were on Weiner’s laptop. “Ms. Abedin will continue to be, as she always has been, forthcoming and cooperative,” she said.

The original FBI investigation was prompted by the discovery of secret intelligence information in Clinton’s emails. The probe, thought to have been finished in July, seeks to find out how classified information was placed on the unsecure server and whether foreign intelligence services or other hackers were able to steal it through cyber intrusions.

The classified information included some of the most sensitive secrets kept in what are called Special Access Programs, including information on how drone strikes are conducted.

Abedin told agents she was not aware of any attempts to hack her email accounts, according to the FBI report of her interview.

“Abedin recalled that some people at DoS had issues with their Gmail accounts but she never had a Gmail account,” the report said.

While working for Clinton, Abedin held a top-secret security clearance. She had a classified computer system, along with a separate unclassified computer, at her desk in Clinton’s office.

“Abedin could access her clintonemail.com account and her Yahoo account via the internet on the unclassified [Department of State] computer system,” the FBI report states.

Abedin told the FBI that printing difficulties on the State Department network led her to routinely forward emails to her non-State Department accounts for printing.

During questioning by the FBI, Abedin was shown several emails that revealed lines of inquiry being pursued by investigators.

For example, one email with the subject line “Fwd: U.S. interest in Pak Paper 10-04” appeared to contain a classified document that was forwarded by Abedin to her personal Yahoo account in October 2009. The document had come from an aide to Richard Holbrooke, who was special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan at the time.

“Abedin was unaware of the classification of the document and stated that she did not make judgments on the classification of material that she received,” the report states, adding that she relied on senders to properly mark and transmit sensitive material.

Another email chain dated August 16, 2010 shown to Abedin contained the subject line, “Re: your yahoo acct.” It appeared to warn Abedin that her Yahoo account had been hacked.

“Abedin did not recall the email and provided that despite the content of the email she was not sure that her email account had ever been compromised,” the report said.

Another email from October 2009 shown to Abedin involved communications security procedures for use during travel in Moscow. Abedin told investigators the email contained instructions to be followed by Clinton and “all the traveling team.”

“Abedin stated that they used computers that were set up and controlled by the Mobile Communications Team to access their DoS and personal email accounts when they were in Russia,” the report said.

The questioning indicates investigators were trying to determine if Russian intelligence may have compromised the emails and cell phones of Clinton and her team of aides during a visit to Russia.

Another email involved Clinton requesting that Abedin schedule a conference call with Jacob Sullivan, a senior State Department official. The message discussed whether the call should be conducted on secure lines or unclassified telephone.

The email contained classified information that was redacted from public release involving Sullivan’s meeting with Hamid bin Jassim, the former prime minister of Qatar.

Abedin said she could not recall the email exchange or the context but noted that generally she would be told by Clinton whether conference calls should be held on secure lines or not. Abedin said it would be unusual for her to read the content and decide whether the call should be secure or unclassified.

Another email shown to Abedin appeared to indicate that the private email server had been hacked.

According to the FBI report, Abedin told investigators she “lost most of her old emails” when the clintonemail.com server was transitioned to a post-State Department server with the address hrcoffice.com.

“Abdein did not know if the system administrator had archived the mailboxes before the system was taken down,” the report said.

Abedin’s claim that she lost most of her emails during the server transition will likely be checked in the FBI review of the new emails found on the Weiner laptop.

The renewed FBI investigation also may be able to resolve questions about missing boxes of emails that disappeared between the time Clinton turned them over to lawyers for review and the time they were ultimately delivered to the State Department.

An identified State Department witness told the FBI that 14 boxes of emails were supplied to Clinton’s lawyers at Williams & Connelly for review prior to being turned over to the State Department. Only 12 boxes were retrieved in December 2015.

Continue reading at the Washington Free Beacon.

Hillary & Huma Email perjury

Influence peddling, acting for Putin’s ally, hiding classified secrets and sexting – how FIVE separate FBI cases are probing virtually every one of Clinton’s inner circle and their families

By: DailMail.com reporters

The extent to which Hillary Clinton’s key advisers are now the focus of major FBI investigations is becoming clear.

The Clintons’ long-term inner-circle – some of whom stretch back in service to the very first days of Bill’s White House – are being examined in at least five separate investigations. 

The scale of the FBI’s interest in some of America’s most powerful political fixers – one of them a sitting governor – underlines just how difficult it will be for Clinton to shake off the taint of scandal if she enters the White House.

There are, in fact, not one but five separate FBI investigations which involve members of Clinton’s inner circle or their closest relatives. 

The five known investigations are into: Anthony Weiner, Huma Abedin’s estranged husband sexting a 15-year-old; the handling of classified material by Clinton and her staff on her private email server; questions over whether the Clinton Foundation was used as a front for influence-peddling; whether the Virginia governor broke laws about foreign donations; and whether Hillary’s campaign chairman’s brother did the same.

The progress of the Clinton Foundation investigation and that into McAuliffe was first reported by the Wall Street Journal. 

The FBI does not generally comment on investigations, so it is entirely possible there are more under way. 

Here are the advisers and consiglieri – and how the FBI is looking at them

Continue Reading Here

Hillary’s Two Official Favors To Morocco Resulted In $28 Million For Clinton Foundation

By: Richard Pollock

Hillary Clinton did two huge favors for Morocco during her tenure as secretary of state while the Clinton Foundation accepted up to $28 million in donations from the country’s ruler, King Mohammed VI, according to new information obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group.

Clinton and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief Lisa Jackson tried to shut down the Florida-based Mosaic Company in 2011, operator of America’s largest phosphate mining facility.

Jackson’s close ties and loyalty to the Clintons were revealed when she joined the Clinton Foundation’s board of directors in 2013, just months after she left the EPA. Jackson is also close to John Podesta, Clinton’s national campaign chairman.

Morocco’s state-owned phosphate company, OCP, would ostensibly have benefited from Jackson’s move to shut down Mosaic. Mohammed donated up to $15 million to the Clinton Foundation through OCP.

Clinton also relaxed U.S. foreign aid restrictions on Morocco, thus allowing U.S. funds to be used in the territory of Western Sahara where OCP operates phosphate mining operations. The aid restrictions stemmed from Morocco’s illegal occupation of the territory since 1974.

Continue Reading Here

Schoen: I’m a Democrat, and I worked for Bill Clinton, but I can’t vote for Hillary

By: Douglas E. Schoen

I made one of the most difficult decisions of my life — not just political, but also personal — on Sunday night.

During my weekly show on “The Fox Report” hosted by Harris Faulkner with Pat Caddell and John LeBoutillier, I indicated that it will be very difficult, if not impossible, for me to vote for Hillary Clinton on November 8.

Why did I say this?

Not for any small reason.

I am now convinced that we will be facing the very real possibility of a constitutional crisis with many dimensions and deleterious consequences should Secretary Clinton win the election.

FBI Director James Comey’s decision to make public the fact that more emails potentially pertinent to the Clinton probe had been found on Anthony Weiner’s computer changes the impact of this election on the future of the country.

I say this because regardless of what Secretary Clinton did or didn’t do or what her aide, Huma Abedin, did or didn’t do or even what Anthony Weiner did or didn’t do, I am now convinced that we will be facing the very real possibility of a constitutional crisis with many dimensions and deleterious consequences should Secretary Clinton win the election.

Continue Reading Here